This board is a composition workshop, like a writers' workshop: post your work with questions about style or vocabulary, comment on other people's work, post composition challenges on some topic or form, or just dazzle us with your inventive use of galliambics.

Just glancing through, and focussing mainly on the verb forms, not on usage:πρῶτοςἔγειραι παῦσον should be middle, παῦσαιἡσύχασονἆρα δύνασαιὁ φίλος μουβοηθήσατε τῶν φυλάκων(ἀπό)στρεψαι (middle) or (ἀπο)στράφθητι (Active impera. would be στρέψον, but it's transitive)βοήθησόν μοι ἡσύχασονσχές for ἔχε if you want aoristWhat's ἕπειν? You mean ἐάν or ἐπάν (ἐπεὶ ἄν)?

The aorist would mean something like: "I smell that a man was wounded." Using the perfect (of the basic verb τιτρώσκω) would mean "I smell a man who is in the state of having been wounded," "I smell a wounded man".

Σαῦλος wrote:This looks like a great way to practice the aorist. Could you post a revised version and translate it. There are bits I'm not getting.

When people suggest corrections I edit them in to the original posting. ( I have already edited in mwh's suggestions. It may take a day to go thru Qimmik's)If there are bits that you don't get it is most likely to be because I have made a mistake. If it is because I have used a less common form then I think notes might be most useful.

If you could post the bits you find difficult, that would be very useful.

Qimmik wrote:Suggestion: for τραυματισθέντα, you might want to try τετρωμένου.

The aorist would mean something like: "I smell that a man was wounded." Using the perfect (of the basic verb τιτρώσκω) would mean "I smell a man who is in the state of having been wounded," "I smell a wounded man".

David's desire to come up with innovative drills combined with Qimmik's and Michael's informed constructive criticism produces a very helpful combination for those of us seeking new resources to learn Greek. Thanks to all!

daivid wrote:«αααααα! σῶσον με!»

1. I think you might want σῶσόν με.2. The αααααα! is a clever way to help remind one what σῶσον means without (really) leaving the target language.

Markos wrote:David's desire to come up with innovative drills combined with Qimmik's and Michael's informed constructive criticism produces a very helpful combination for those of us seeking new resources to learn Greek. Thanks to all!

Well as I'm always complaining about the resources that do exist I can hardly not have a go myself even if I'm not really up to the job. However, it is due first of all to Qimmik's and Michael's corrections that we might end up with something usable. So to them is owed the biggest thanks.

Markos wrote:

daivid wrote:«αααααα! σῶσον με!»

1. I think you might want σῶσόν με.

I don't understand the difference the second accent makes. Perseus just drops it when I try checking there.

I don't understand the accentuation of egeirai, or I don't understand what Perseus says about it. Shouldn't it be recessive like mwh says, ἔγειραι? But Perseus word study tool proposes only the alternatives ἐγείραι and ἐγεῖραι. Even if the accent were on the second syllable, how could it be ἐγείραι, since -αι should be counted short and in that case a circumflex on the long penult is obligatory?

So even though an enclitic can never have stress of its own it can in certain circumstances bring one into existence on the syllable before. I had been wondering why my spell checker was giving me the option of double accents. Now I know. Thank you very much.

Don't let me fool you. I didn't know about the first aorist active infinitive--I had to look it up.

ἔγειραι, ἐγείραι and ἐγεῖραι illustrate how accent was a distinctive feature in ancient Greek. (Some caution is warranted, because the diacritical accent marks were added to ancient Greek texts at a time when the accents were probably no longer a feature of the spoken language.)

Here's what the Perseus word study tool gave for "egeirai". I have used this tool only rarely, but until now I hadn't spotted any clear mistakes. Both imperative accentuations are wrong and the correct form isn't even included! One of the proposed optative and aorist infinitive forms are also wrong. Henceforth I'll know not to trust Perseus on accents.

For the really serious, two wonderful books on accentuation: H.W. Chandler's 19th-century classic Practical Intro ..., wholly untheorized and with a must-read preface, and Philomen Probert's 21st-century linguistically informed Anc.Gk.Accentuatn.Oh and in additn to Probert's big book there's her New Short Guide ... too, a better starting point

In theory, Greek words can be divided into morae, short vowels constituting one mora and long vowels and diphthongs two. Whatever the true nature of the accent, it's convenient to assume that it is really a single mora that carries the accent and not the whole syllable; the mora with the accent has a rise in tone and the next mora has always a fall in tone - two consecutive morae cannot have the accent, because the tone must always drop to baselevel in between.

If a syllable is long (i.e., has two morae) and has the accent, the accent can be either on the first mora or the second. If it's on the first mora, it's a circumflex (e.g. ἐγεῖραι egEerai, the majuscule E representing a rise in tone on the first mora of ει, the following minuscule e a fall in tone on the second mora of ει); if it's on the second mora, the syllable is an acute (ἐγείραι egeErai). If the syllable is short, it has only one mora, so the accent can only be acute (ἔγειραι Egeerai).

λίπέ με is impossible, because it would require a rise in tone in two consecutive morae (*lIpE me). With a circumflex, the tone falls in the second mora of the syllable, so the next syllable can be acute (σῶσόν με sOosOn me).

(I'm aware of one exception to this rule: with interrogative pronouns, there can be an acute on two succesive morae: τίς τ᾽ ἄρ σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι; (Il. 1. 8.))